4 major changes in the draft BCCI Constitution approved by Supreme Court

Reformation process of administration and governance structure of the BCCI finally seems to have reached a practical conclusion. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment has approved and given effect to the draft BCCI Constitution prepared by the Committee of Administrators (CoA). The CoA was formed as a result of non-compliance of the recommendations by the BCCI and its state associations after the apex court accepted the Lodha Committee recommendations.

The CoA was entrusted with the task of preparing a draft Constitution keeping in line with the Lodha Committee recommendations and also previous judgments/orders of the top Court accepting those recommendations.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra passed the judgment diluting some of the key recommendations of the committee in order to ensure maximum efficiency in the administration of Cricket by the BCCI.

The draft Constitution will have to be presented to The Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which shall register it and submit a report to the Court within four weeks.

Here are 4 key changes in the draft Constitution which were approved by the Supreme Court.

---

#1 One-State One Vote

The Lodha Committee had dealt with the issue of membership in its report and recommended that membership of BCCI would consist of 'full members' and 'associate members'. The Committee based its recommendation to grant full membership upon the principle of territoriality.

This essentially means that entities such as Railways Sports Promotion Board and Services Sports Promotion Board which do not represent any territory would not have full membership. This would also lead to states like Gujarat and Maharashtra who each have three cricket associations with only one full membership which shall rotate among them on an annual basis.

The three-judge bench was not in consonance with the principle of territoriality devised to deal with the issue of membership. The Court took into account the history of these cricket associations and their contribution in uplifting the standard of the sport in the country to decide on the membership status.

To utilize territoriality as a basis of exclusion is problematic because it ignores history and the contributions made by such associations to the development of cricket and its popularity,” observed Justice Chandrachud.

As a result, the Court scrapped the one state one vote recommendation and restored full membership status to all three associations each in Gujarat and Maharashtra. It also provided full membership status to Railways Sports Promotion Board, Services Sports Promotion Board and Association of Indian Universities based on their Cricketing history.

This diluted one of the key recommendation which was aimed at curbing the politicization of Cricket administration in India through these Cricket associations.

#2 Cooling-off period

The Lodha Committee had recommended a ‘mandatory’ cooling-off period after each term for office bearers of the BCCI and State Associations. It had set the tenure for each term to be of three years and also put a limit on the number of tenures an office bearer can hold. The aim of this particular recommendation was to provide a safeguard against the concentration of power with a limited group of people and also to allow dispersion of power.

However, there was serious contemplation regarding the cooling-off provision not being an effective measure to deal with administration issues. It was argued that limiting the tenure of office bearers and not allowing them consecutive terms would prevent them from using their gained experience and knowledge which will hamper the efficiency of administration.

The apex court, though principally aligning with the provision, opined that the cooling off period would apply only after the administrator has held two successive terms either with the BCCI or any State association or both.

“Six years in continuation is a sufficiently long period for experience and knowledge gained to be deployed in the interest of the game without at the same time resulting in a monopoly of power,” Justice Chandrachud noted.

The Court did not interfere with other two recommendations pertaining to the tenure of the administrators.

#3 No. of Selectors

The Lodha Committee had recommended restricting the number of selectors in the selection committee to three from five on the grounds that it will be more compact and effective. The Court, however, was not convinced with this recommendation and expressed the need of a broad-based selection committee. It held that the number of selectors in the selection committee be increased to five for better talent recruitment across the country.

"The vast territory of the nation, the extent of cricket being played both at the national and international level, the need for selectors to travel extensively to spot talent from the pool of cricketers and the need to encourage both domestic and international cricket, are consideration which persuade us to accept the plea for modification in regard to the number of selectors to five." Justice Chandrachud remarked.

The top Court also laid down criteria to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for the post of a selector.

#4 Apex Council approved

The Lodha Committee had recommended the establishment of an apex council to professionally administer and manage the affairs of the BCCI. The Council would consist of nine members out of which five (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and a member) will be elected by the General Body and others will be recruited using a transparent process.

The Court upheld this recommendation allowing for setting up of the Council consisting of Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other officers who will work separately from the General body in order to professionalize the management of the cricket board.